The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

Status
Not open for further replies.
:shrug: About as petty as character assassination and misrepresentation.
Oooh, now you're trying to play the victim. Sorry, that stopped working ages ago.

Oh, I agree that complexity does sometimes appear as obfuscation. It shouldn't, but it does.
Complexity of an issue does not. Needlessly throwing in irrelevant information does. In fact, it is borderline intellectual dishonesty...

False dilemma. I never said "all". But now you're arguing "most". Have any evidence for this? I have to tell you, it does run a bit counter-current to your posse's concepts... and they do wield a bit more power than little old me. Food for thought.
So then you claim there is not a sexual part to rape? I would like to see some evidence of this.
Evidence for their being a sexual component to rape is pretty simple... sex occurs quite often in rape. Or is sex not sexual?

Kitta, again, if you don't get the proposition, ask or don't comment. Don't try to make it into something it's not just to score points.
Points? I didn't realize I was on "Whose Line Is It Anyway"

It's written Homo sapiens, without referring to the subspecies. Let's discuss: does "minor effect" translate to "no relevance" or "absolute effect"? You're arguing the latter about my point as a kind of false dichotomy. Or: "All about biology" and "no relevance" are taking up very different positions on importance. The latter is closer, mathematically.
I apologize for my typographic error - Indeed, it is Homo sapiens. I am curious though - how do you figure my argument is a false dichotomy? You yourself said:
In. The. Distant. Evolutionary. Past. At. The. Dawn. Of. Mankind. Or. In. Related. Species. Not. Now.

Sounds like a retraction and backpedaling...


Doesn't much explain your concluding thoughts earlier.
Oh, you are still confused on my stance on rape? Well, I'm sorry, but I can't make it much more clear than
36380269.jpg




How strange. I seem to have attracted a 'posse' anyway. (Maybe we're are all the crazy ones, eh amigo?)
You haven't attracted a posse in this thread so much as the usual members of the forum who find any reason at all the complain about the leadership on the forums... not surprising really.
I would be curious to peruse your PM history... bet there is some juicy collaboration going on there, but that isn't my call to make.

Will it be? Will it really? Or will we be back on this again an hour later? "Geoff, why do you consider all rape biological?" "I don't." "Geoff, why do you consider all rape biological?" Etc. Excuse me if I don't write this sucker down in my Dream Diary.

That depends - do you intend to posit your argument using sources that try to make such claims?

And speaking of "rape apologist"... or was it "advocate"? I forget...

So, in concert with your above statement, the victim is sometimes indeed "asking for it" to happen. Keeping in mind you're referring to rape here, not sex. Your example afterwards then confounds the two. And I'm the "rape apologist/advocate/whatever". Right.

I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and twisting of statement to try and allude that I am somehow saying rape is okay in any situation.
No, once again - my point was that sometimes the person we think is the "victim" in a supposed "rape" is, in fact, the one using the supposed rapist. Much as any normal person could comprehend from the explanation given.

Kitta, do you have any other unusual talents, like backpedaling or juggling? Useful in a circus, I hear.
Indeed, I have many talents - sniffing out bullshit is just one of many, and it makes poor lonely minstrels like yourself very angry when they can no longer spout their venom without being called out on it.
 
Firstly, I am sorry about your sister. The grooming process involves that element of control, the power dynamic in the relationship where the offender makes the victim believe that he/she is in love with them. It is tragically not uncommon. And having been brought up in an atmosphere where this was happening, having to relate to your sister during that is possibly why you are drawn to other victims, it's something that you know and understand, if that makes sense?

The thing with GeoffP.. Was spread out over several weeks and across a few threads. He has argued from a position that is, well, bizarre for quite a few of us and kind of all over the place. While his earlier comments were posted and linked, it is a matter of context and how it is perceived. This has been linked earlier and it's probably better to read the links so that you can apply the context and so you can know and understand where we are coming from. Particular comments were made, such as the moose humping the tree to demonstrate it's just sexual example would have to be one of the worst thus far and others also took it to mean about sex or sexual. So it's not just us here in this thread. It's in the last few pages of the rape thread.

You're kind of missing something here: the issue I am an alluding to has nothing to do with GeoffP...

But nevermind, this seriously is not worth it.
 
I worked for the District Attorney's Office, years ago. Ours was the standard 100 yards, as well, still is. Their low reporting and conviction rates are also similar to ours.

In Australia there has been significant improvement in relation to sexual offences, including major modifications to the law. Even though Australia has witnessed significant culture changes and recent reform, research suggests success has been partial at best.

Like I said, it’s unfortunate that her prosecuting attorney made the decision to not file charges because his mental instability wouldn’t have hinder the case and the use of physical force has been found to improve substantially the chance of conviction.

Keep in mind that even we didn't have any major changes in rape law legislation until 1955, but the code wasn't even published until 1980.
The main issue with the DPP, in Queensland in particular, and this is the same with other States, is that it is about the numbers. They are bogged down. So they trim. Dropping my case was not unusual. This is what they do.

There have been tremendous inroads to address the issues that concern sexual assault and domestic violence. It is much better now than it used to be. But it does not mean the issues that plagued the system before have ceased to exist. Far from it. But there is mounting public pressure to fix it. Because frankly, the change is coming from public pressure because people are now more savvy, they are more aware of the process, instead of just the outcome at the end. It is no longer 'secret business'. And that is probably the best thing. When people find out just how so few rape cases even make it to a court room, then they speak up. Hopefully, one day the politicians will listen.
 
OK. LOL!

Just a comment, out of context (screw reading the thread- it was linked from another.)

But if 23% of woman were only touched sexually. The human population would be a lot slimmer.


:EDIT:

Damn, it was linked to a previous page.

SHCard2_2.jpg
 
Grassy knolls and doesy-dotes and little lambsie investigatorial officers

Oooh, now you're trying to play the victim. Sorry, that stopped working ages ago.

Yeah, we "attention whores" just love that kind of thing. I guess we... "ask for it"?

Complexity of an issue does not. Needlessly throwing in irrelevant information does. In fact, it is borderline intellectual dishonesty...

So write back what it is you think of as "needlessly complex". I'd love to see what you think this is.

So then you claim there is not a sexual part to rape? I would like to see some evidence of this.
Evidence for their being a sexual component to rape is pretty simple... sex occurs quite often in rape. Or is sex not sexual?

You want evidence of a negative? Talk to Bells. Effect is marginal at best, and probably subsumed in the psychological matrix of the attacker.

I apologize for my typographic error - Indeed, it is Homo sapiens. I am curious though - how do you figure my argument is a false dichotomy? You yourself said:

Because you demand - at different points - that my position is either "all biological" or now, "not at all biological". It's neither. That's your false dichotomy, not mine. You're veering off and claiming now that some types are "mostly" about sex, or that some people "ask for it" in some cases. That is hugely outrageous. No one is making that case, except you.

Oh, you are still confused on my stance on rape?

Well, maybe I'm just "asking for" some clarification.

You haven't attracted a posse in this thread so much as the usual members of the forum who find any reason at all the complain about the leadership on the forums... not surprising really.
I would be curious to peruse your PM history... bet there is some juicy collaboration going on there, but that isn't my call to make.

You missed your calling with the NSA, Kitta. Got a CV prepped?

But hell...

Be my guest, be my guest:
Put my disinterest to the test!
Go poke around my Inbox
and then stand and beat your chest.

Something juicy?
Sacre bleu!
Perhaps something makes you drool?
Try the Sent box! It's seditious!
Don't believe me? Ask my bitches!*
(*sorry bitches)

They can circle, they can dance
They can burn you like fire ants
And a flamewar here is never second be-eeest

So go and crack my code
Just like some fascist chode

I'm not impressed
Young fascist
Be my guest!


Cause what I've said there is nothing I haven't said on here, chief. I've even said it to other people. :eek: But while we're at it, why not open up the mod forum too? Open government. :shrug:

And yes, I know that 'fascist' and 'impressed' don't really rhyme. Mea culpa.

That depends - do you intend to posit your argument using sources that try to make such claims?

Not up on the English thing much, eh. Tell me: do you intend to read the derived arguments, or just assume that the cite is a complete representation of my exact position? When I say shit like, I don't know, that I think they go too far, what does that mean to you? Hmm?

I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and twisting of statement to try and allude that I am somehow saying rape is okay in any situation.

Not at all. I certainly don't think you think rape is okay in any situation.

Your statements mean you think it's okay in some situations, like when the victim is "asking for it". Me, I kind of go the other way, as in that it's not acceptable in any situation. Clearly though, that's just mean ol' Geoff.

Hey, in that same vein, why don't you just claim I put a spell on you or something to say that shit? I think a reasonable chunk of the mods might actually go for it.

Indeed, I have many talents - sniffing out bullshit is just one of many

So go take a bath. It's not my fault you're offended in what you roll around it. I've seen dogs eat shit too, but I didn't tell them to do it, did I?
 
Yeah, we "attention whores" just love that kind of thing. I guess we... "ask for it"?
Oooh, trying to use a plea to emotion by tying your situation in with someone who was just raped, then calling upon a known emotive statement. How tragic.

So write back what it is you think of as "needlessly complex". I'd love to see what you think this is.
Roughly half of the words in your posts could be removed and, with a little simple rewording, get the point across without being excessive.

You want evidence of a negative? Talk to Bells. Effect is marginal at best, and probably subsumed in the psychological matrix of the attacker.
Ah, but marginal is not the same as non-existent.

Because you demand - at different points - that my position is either "all biological" or now, "not at all biological". It's neither. That's your false dichotomy, not mine. You're veering off and claiming now that some types are "mostly" about sex, or that some people "ask for it" in some cases. That is hugely outrageous. No one is making that case, except you.
Except it was your very wording that said it, not mine. If you cannot say what it is you mean, then perhaps you should simply stay out of the argument. I'm sure Fraggle Rocker could give you a few lessons in linguistics that would clear that up... or is this all by your own choice, used in a thinly veiled attempt to cause drama and discord?

Well, maybe I'm just "asking for" some clarification.
OOooh, more attempts at an appeal to emotion. If my stance is still not clear to you, then you really should go ask Fraggle for some help with English.

You missed your calling with the NSA, Kitta. Got a CV prepped?

But hell...

Be my guest, be my guest:
Put my disinterest to the test!
Go poke around my Inbox
and then stand and beat your chest.

Something juicy?
Sacre bleu!
Perhaps something makes you drool?
Try the Sent box! It's seditious!
Don't believe me? Ask my bitches!*
(*sorry bitches)

They can circle, they can dance
They can burn you like fire ants
And a flamewar here is never second be-eeest

So go and crack my code
Just like some fascist chode

I'm not impressed
Young fascist
Be my guest!


Cause what I've said there is nothing I haven't said on here, chief. I've even said it to other people. :eek: But while we're at it, why not open up the mod forum too? Open government. :shrug:

And yes, I know that 'fascist' and 'impressed' don't really rhyme. Mea culpa.

Mea Culpa indeed... but a song and dance number hm? Nothing too unusual from you, though at least this time you had the courtesy to put it to an easily recognizable melody.

Not up on the English thing much, eh. Tell me: do you intend to read the derived arguments, or just assume that the cite is a complete representation of my exact position? When I say shit like, I don't know, that I think they go too far, what does that mean to you? Hmm?
What does it mean to me? Well, coming from you, precisely nothing - I don't believe anything you say since you have this habitual tendency to either backpedal or try and claim that you were misrepresented, then change your own language when quoting yourself.

Not at all. I certainly don't think you think rape is okay in any situation.
Your statements mean you think it's okay in some situations, like when the victim is "asking for it".
I see it is you that has a problem with English. Let me rephrase that statement, using small words so you can understand:

My Original Statement:
I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and twisting of statement to try and allude that I am somehow saying rape is okay in any situation.

Translated for GeoffP:
Kittamaru said:
You are lying and putting words in my mouth again. You are trying to make it sound like there are times when I think rape is okay.

Me, I kind of go the other way, as in that it's not acceptable in any situation. Clearly though, that's just mean ol' Geoff.
Funny, didn't sound like that a few pages ago.

Hey, in that same vein, why don't you just claim I put a spell on you or something to say that shit? I think a reasonable chunk of the mods might actually go for it.
Not really... none of us feel you have the... hm... attention span, nor the capacity for, learning magick of any sort, much less mind control. Suggestive thinking would be even further outside your grasp.

So go take a bath. It's not my fault you're offended in what you roll around it. I've seen dogs eat shit too, but I didn't tell them to do it, did I?
Oooh, the old "I am rubber, you are glue" argument. I feel like I'm back on a first grade playground! Thank you Geoff, that was quite invigorating, but I'm afraid it's time to grow up and act your age, not your shoe size.
 
In other words, Thornhill and Palmer are trading one extreme (that Rape is all about violence and power) for the other (that Rape is all about the biological urge to reproduce). NEITHER stance is right...

Much like in politics... even if the Democrats have a good idea, the Republicans will try to stop it. If the Republicans have a good idea, the Democrats will try to stop it. Why? Because God FORBID the other side be made to look good!

A good summary. I would also add that there is a dynamic that occurs in such discussions where "sides" are assigned. From that point on, a poster will argue against the other person's "side" rather than what they actually posted.
 
A good summary. I would also add that there is a dynamic that occurs in such discussions where "sides" are assigned. From that point on, a poster will argue against the other person's "side" rather than what they actually posted.

Which, in my opinion, is exactly what has happened in this thread.
 
Double irony Friday

Oooh, trying to use a plea to emotion by tying your situation in with someone who was just raped, then calling upon a known emotive statement. How tragic.

Actually I was referring to an instance some time back where Bells called me an "attention whore". I didn't mind so much, in truth, but it's not the kind of verbiage people should be thoughtlessly throwing around.

Roughly half of the words in your posts could be removed and, with a little simple rewording, get the point across without being excessive.

Oh good! Please do. I had no idea we were policing word counts now.

Ah, but marginal is not the same as non-existent.

Correct! I was arguing neither non-existent, nor absolute. This is making progress.

Except it was your very wording that said it, not mine. If you cannot say what it is you mean, then perhaps you should simply stay out of the argument. I'm sure Fraggle Rocker could give you a few lessons in linguistics that would clear that up... or is this all by your own choice, used in a thinly veiled attempt to cause drama and discord?

And you're back off the rails again. It would be nice if you could make up your mind sometime about what it is you think I posted and maybe, you know, provide evidence thereof when you do. Then we could debate that, instead of what you think I posted, moment to moment.

Mea Culpa indeed... but a song and dance number hm? Nothing too unusual from you, though at least this time you had the courtesy to put it to an easily recognizable melody.

That's be tua culpa, I believe, since you're referring to me. But can I interest ya in a conspiracy, bub? Hardly used, only four posts old.

What does it mean to me? Well, coming from you, precisely nothing - I don't believe anything you say since you have this habitual tendency to either backpedal or try and claim that you were misrepresented, then change your own language when quoting yourself.

:yawn: Pics or it didn't happen. Can you make up your mind about my proposition sometime? You took the greatest of pains to isolate it before, and now you're pretending that didn't happen either.

I see it is you that has a problem with English.

I haz?

Let me rephrase that statement, using small words so you can understand:

Kittamaru: I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and twisting of statement to try and allude that I am somehow saying rape is okay in any situation.

Translated for GeoffP:
Quote Originally Posted by Kittamaru
You are lying and putting words in my mouth again. You are trying to make it sound like there are times when I think rape is okay.

Ah, your 'translation' is different in meaning to the original statement. I don't think that you think rape is okay in any situation. Clearly you only think it's acceptable in exceptionals "when the victim is asking for it"[/quote]. No other way to read the language, chief:

Kittamaru said:

So what are these exceptions in which the victim is "asking for it" to happen? Is it a punishment thing in your mind, or what?

Funny, didn't sound like that a few pages ago.

What, you mean [url=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141802-The-Broad-Brush-Women-and-Men-Prejudice-and-Necessity&p=3201024&viewfull=1#post3201024]here[/quote]? Because otherwise, you're saying that I think it's okay to rape women sometimes. I don't, and I've said so many times. The only person who thought it was okay to rape women in certain exceptional instances is... you. Oh, you ol' rape apologist you.

Except that it appears you really are, so it's not really so funny, is it? Really scuzzy, actually, but Jesus, there's some irony alive on the forum today, eh? Hey, you know how you would have avoided this whole thing? By being ethical and balanced from the start. Maybe about that "rape advocate" comment you were challenged on. Irony.
 
Your statements mean you think it's okay in some situations, like when the victim is "asking for it". Me, I kind of go the other way, as in that it's not acceptable in any situation. Clearly though, that's just mean ol' Geoff.
He was talking about people who are into role playing sex.. You know, rape role playing? So it's not "rape", because both consent to it and both trust each other implicitly and know the boundaries because they have worked it out beforehand. There will usually be a word or a safe word that both know in advance since "no" or "stop" usually become part of the role play. That is what Kitta was talking about. How many times does he need to explain it? It was clear when I read it. How did you miss it?

You do know that some couples are into that kind of thing, yes?


Hey, in that same vein, why don't you just claim I put a spell on you or something to say that shit? I think a reasonable chunk of the mods might actually go for it.
Or you could stop carrying on like you're smoking crack or something...
 
Actually I was referring to an instance some time back where Bells called me an "attention whore". I didn't mind so much, in truth, but it's not the kind of verbiage people should be thoughtlessly throwing around.
Fair enough.

Oh good! Please do. I had no idea we were policing word counts now.
The word count doesn't matter - however, adding unnecessary vernacular with the intent of confusing the issue is either pointless rambling, something more sinister... or something else. So what is it?

Correct! I was arguing neither non-existent, nor absolute. This is making progress.
Then why the cross-examination when I made the same point? You painted yourself as an opposing party in the argument.

And you're back off the rails again. It would be nice if you could make up your mind sometime about what it is you think I posted and maybe, you know, provide evidence thereof when you do. Then we could debate that, instead of what you think I posted, moment to moment.

Provide evidence? I've done it already, but here we go again - third time's the charm eh?
In. The. Distant. Evolutionary. Past. At. The. Dawn. Of. Mankind. Or. In. Related. Species. Not. Now.

So... is that saying there is or is not at least some biological drive? Because the "At the dawn of mankind, or in related species. Not now" kind of sounds to me like you are saying no, there is not...
Again, say what you mean, mean what you say.

That's be tua culpa, I believe, since you're referring to me. But can I interest ya in a conspiracy, bub? Hardly used, only four posts old.
Nah, I'm not much for wild theories or crazy accusations.

:yawn: Pics or it didn't happen. Can you make up your mind about my proposition sometime? You took the greatest of pains to isolate it before, and now you're pretending that didn't happen either.
Pics or it didn't happen? How about quotes? Such as the one above, where you claim no, but now you are claiming yes. Make up yer mind pancake.

scrabble-cat-haz-is-not-a-word.jpg


Ah, your 'translation' is different in meaning to the original statement. I don't think that you think rape is okay in any situation. Clearly you only think it's acceptable in exceptionals "when the victim is asking for it"
. No other way to read the language, chief:[/quote]
Is it now? How about I offer you another restatement of my original sentence:

My Original Statement:
I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and twisting of statement to try and allude that I am somehow saying rape is okay in any situation.

Retranslated again:
Kittamaru said:
I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and a twisting of statements to try and allude that I am somehow saying that there is any situation in which rape is okay.

I do notice one error on my part - in my original sentence, there should probably be an apostrophe between "okay" and "in". You have my sincerest apologies that I am not picture-perfect in every sentence I construct.


So what are these exceptions in which the victim is "asking for it" to happen? Is it a punishment thing in your mind, or what?
Already given and explained - the exception would be a situation in which the supposed "victim" is, in fact, using the claim of rape to accomplish some sort of goal - such as claiming rape as a form of blackmail - even when there is no actual rape.

What, you mean [url=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141802-The-Broad-Brush-Women-and-Men-Prejudice-and-Necessity&p=3201024&viewfull=1#post3201024]here
? Because otherwise, you're saying that I think it's okay to rape women sometimes. I don't, and I've said so many times. The only person who thought it was okay to rape women in certain exceptional instances is... you. Oh, you ol' rape apologist you.
Mmm, more unfounded accusation and blatant lies. You really don't have an honest bone in your body, do you bub.

Except that it appears you really are, so it's not really so funny, is it? Really scuzzy, actually, but Jesus, there's some irony alive on the forum today, eh? Hey, you know how you would have avoided this whole thing? By being ethical and balanced from the start. Maybe about that "rape advocate" comment you were challenged on. Irony.

Indeed, it is ironic that the one who got called out on it and thus changed his tune so completely is now trying to claim someone else as a rape advocate.

Curious how your mind works... I would say you should be sent for psycho analysis... but I don't wish to damage the mind of whatever poor psychiatrist you get assigned to.

Or you could stop carrying on like you're smoking crack or something...

In all honesty... it wouldn't surprise me to find out that it isn't an act, but the actual cause...
 
Playing the role?

He was talking about people who are into role playing sex.. You know, rape role playing?

Oh, certainly. And that just came up now. And his own definition doesn't match that at all. Otherwise, perfect.

It was clear when I read it.

I have no doubt you felt it quite clear. It contradicts a bit with his statements below, but, well, whatever.

Or you could stop carrying on like you're smoking crack or something...

Oh come on: given the above, I bet there's a least a 50% chance you'd buy the idea I'd ensorcelled him somehow.

The word count doesn't matter - however, adding unnecessary vernacular with the intent of confusing the issue is either pointless rambling, something more sinister... or something else. So what is it?

Clarity. Fullness of thought. Do you prefer deep discussions at a 140-character max?

Then why the cross-examination when I made the same point? You painted yourself as an opposing party in the argument.

Because you again described my position as a complete unitary effect. It isn't. Precise language matters, particularly so in this debate, because of those involved.

So... is that saying there is or is not at least some biological drive?

I am saying that there may well be some biological impulses for the behaviour. Such a system, however, would be incredibly complicated and residual at this point, and further be inconsistent among types of sexual assault and perpetrators. It is exceedingly unlikely that it could be a major effect, since human sociality should have generated severe selection against it since the development of civilisation and language. It's much more likely to exist or have been common in early hominids or common ancestors of hominids and apes. Furthermore, the effect itself would be largely concealed by the behavioural lability imposed by the forebrain; that is, human personality.

Is my not stating a definitive cause - all-or-nothing - what you are complaining about when you say you don't understand the composition of this proposition? It isn't all-or-nothing. Even the existence of this effect isn't certain, only possible. That's the boundary of statistical genetics: likelihood.

Nah, I'm not much for wild theories or crazy accusations.

Like "rape advocate", presumably.

I do notice one error on my part - in my original sentence, there should probably be an apostrophe between "okay" and "in". You have my sincerest apologies that I am not picture-perfect in every sentence I construct.

Oh good. That just brings us back to the statement about special conditions in which it's okay to rape a woman if she's "asking for it". Maybe you could plug a fortunate apostrophe in there.

Already given and explained - the exception would be a situation in which the supposed "victim" is, in fact, using the claim of rape to accomplish some sort of goal - such as claiming rape as a form of blackmail - even when there is no actual rape.

That does not match the construction of the language you used previously.

Indeed, it is ironic that the one who got called out on it and thus changed his tune so completely is now trying to claim someone else as a rape advocate.

Well, you're the only actual one I've come across so far. Which tune have I changed again? Pics or it didn't happen. I'm afraid I have to insist on this kind of thing.

Mmm, more unfounded accusation and blatant lies.

If so, I've certainly had two good tutors on this thread. I reiterate: "rape advocate". Remember that phrase? That's okay to accuse me of, as far as you're concerned, on absolutely no evidence, while you seem to think rape is okay in some circumstances while also pushing the biological cause on no evidence you've presented at all, for which Bells had another grande mal freakout. Little fishy, chief. That's okay though: I guarantee Bells will find no fault with it whatsoever. Chill! You're in the clear.
 
(sigh)

IPA: Greatest Hits 2014

From geting married to buying a gun, Tara Culp-Ressler takes a moment to consider the latest and greatest from the argument that it is up to women to stop men from raping.

With, of course, the obvious note:

Of course, keeping individuals safe from violence and rape is an admirable goal. But when women are constantly told about the rape prevention strategies that they’re supposed to follow, they’re sent a clear message: It’s their responsibility to avoid becoming a victim, and if they fail at that task, it must be their fault. If you’re a rape victim who keeps an anti-rape checklist in your head, it’s all too easy to assume that there must have been something you should have done differently before your consent was violated. That attitude is exactly what leads society as a whole to blame survivors — instead of placing the blame squarely where it belongs, with the perpetrators of the crime.
____________________

Notes:

Culp-Ressler, Tara. "All Of The Things Women Are Supposed To Do To Prevent Rape". ThinkProgress. June 10, 2014. ThinkProgress.org. June 20, 2014. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/10/3447269/guide-prevent-rape/

See Also:

Valenti, Jessica. "Asking For It". The Nation. January 11, 2013. TheNation.com. June 20, 2014. http://www.thenation.com/blog/172156/asking-it

Culp-Ressler, Tara. "Obama Launches Initiative To Combat Rape: 'I Want Every Young Man To Feel Some Strong Peer Pressure'". ThinkProgress. January 22, 2014. ThinkProgress.org. June 20, 2014. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/22/3193001/obama-sexual-assault-initiative/
 
It's a deliberate failure of language. Fault is distinct from sensibility.
 
Oh, certainly. And that just came up now. And his own definition doesn't match that at all. Otherwise, perfect.
It was clear when you PM'ed me to link it to me.

I have no doubt you felt it quite clear. It contradicts a bit with his statements below, but, well, whatever.
Ermm not really. You're scrambling in the hope that you can point to someone else to tell me "see!!".. Well you've already done that.. But you are picking on the wrong target. He's not the one advocating that women behave a certain way if they want to avoid being raped. And that's the part you're completely missing or ignoring deliberately. Several in this thread have argued for this point. Perhaps you can turn your maniacal eye onto them and ask them why they think it's a woman's responsibility to behave a certain way or dress a certain way, etc, so that she can predict and prevent the random actions of another person she may or may not know towards her?

Oh come on: given the above, I bet there's a least a 50% chance you'd buy the idea I'd ensorcelled him somehow.
No, I'm an atheist. I don't believe that kind of stuff. Perhaps you should take your woowoo to the appropriate forums, hmm?

If so, I've certainly had two good tutors on this thread. I reiterate: "rape advocate". Remember that phrase? That's okay to accuse me of, as far as you're concerned, on absolutely no evidence, while you seem to think rape is okay in some circumstances while also pushing the biological cause on no evidence you've presented at all, for which Bells had another grande mal freakout. Little fishy, chief. That's okay though: I guarantee Bells will find no fault with it whatsoever. Chill! You're in the clear.
See, this is where you troll.

At no time did he say that rape is okay in some circumstances. Rape role playing is not rape because both consent to the role play well in advance and plan it to be a role play. There is consent, there is determination and knowledge of what they are going to do. So in those situations, it's not rape. Just pretend rape between two consenting adults.

Rape is sex without consent. Sex with consent, even when role playing, is not rape. It would become rape if one uses the safe word to stop and the other does not stop.
 
Too bad by your arguments in this thread, it would fall into the 3) "Had you been drinking?" "Why were you talking to him in the first place?".. camp.

No, we took option 2). That's a real world example, as in "what actually happens." In the real world, women sometimes CAN tell who is a threat to them, and can use that knowledge to protect themselves. I suspect even yourself and Tiassa would respond similarly, despite all your "women can't tell!" rhetoric.
 
No, we took option 2). That's a real world example, as in "what actually happens." In the real world, women sometimes CAN tell who is a threat to them, and can use that knowledge to protect themselves. I suspect even yourself and Tiassa would respond similarly, despite all your "women can't tell!" rhetoric.
Yes, women can sometimes tell. So why do you feel the need to keep telling them that they need to while reminding them that it's only common sense? You set the bar and if women fail to meet it, then she has somehow failed in her responsibility to not act or act a certain way to deter being violently assaulted by any random person.

I mean I get it. You want women to behave or dress a certain way so that through that, she somehow controls the behaviour of any random person she may or may not know and what that individual may do to her. Which is controlling in and of itself. Rape prevention is full of conflicts because not all rapists look for the same things in their victims. So it sets up a false sense of safety where women adhere to all of these conflicting rules set out by her society or community or random men and women about what she should be doing to prevent rape and then she is raped anyway.. So what then?

If you want rape prevention, then educate men and women to not rape. Educate them that the body of another is not theirs to own or control because they 'want it' or because it is their right. Instead of placing the onus on the victim to not be raped, place the onus on the perpetrator to not rape. Instead, what we have are public figures excusing rape and commenting on how hard it is for the poor rapists and how it should be easier for them.. Look at George Will as a prime example. The latest is a whine that male college students who sexually assault or rape young college students are being unfairly tarnished because you have sex and alcohol and these poor guys are just having such a hard time of it.. Poor them. It excuses their behaviour while demonising the women they rape as being the bitches who level accusations of rape and sexual assault against them. To him, "improper touching" should not even be deemed sexual assault.. Umm if someone says no and the person keeps touching them in a sexual manner, how is that not sexual assault? But here we have a public figure simply blaming women and making the men who rape them to be the true victims. Instead of saying 'don't rape', he's not only excusing their behaviour, but he is blaming the victim for being raped and somehow benefiting from being raped as though it's such a great thing and all.. The initial complaint was to men to not rape not because rape is bad, but because it's giving women privilege of rape victims..
 
Yes, women can sometimes tell.
Excellent! Progress. Yes, women can sometimes tell. And that can prevent rapes. And that is a good thing. Hopefully you can agree with that.
So why do you feel the need to keep telling them that they need to while reminding them that it's only common sense?
Because in the real world it is. See the example above. Nothing more than common sense kept a woman from being the likely victim of an assault. No "getting a degree as a psychiatrist", no "getting your black belt." Just common sense.
You want women to behave or dress a certain way so that through that, she somehow controls the behaviour of any random person she may or may not know and what that individual may do to her.
Aaaaand - away down the rabbit hole you go again. No, I don't want women to behave a certain way. I want THEM to decide how to behave, based on their own knowledge, experience, education and risk assessment. And I advocate providing such education. Ignorance is one of a rapist's strongest allies.
If you want rape prevention, then educate men and women to not rape.
Yes, that's another excellent approach. And I, like nearly every women's advocacy and anti-rape site out there, advocate that we do both.
 
Life and Rape in the Twenty-First Century

Bells said:

The latest is a whine that male college students who sexually assault or rape young college students are being unfairly tarnished because you have sex and alcohol and these poor guys are just having such a hard time of it.

You know, the excuse used to be that it wasn't really rape because she secretly wanted to be fucked. Now it seems like some are leaning toward that insane line that women secretly want to be raped.

Part of what really bothers me is the long-term, demonstrable futility of IPA. Setting aside the functional presupposition that women need to be told this stuff, they apparently also need to be told over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And, as we see, what these protection advocates would not advise is the straightforward, mechanically logical result of the statistical analysis.

When you throw in the latest twist, far be it for me to suggest Culp-Ressler is wrong

1. Get married.

A piece published on the Washington Post on Tuesday argues that in order to prevent violence against women, more women should “get hitched to their baby daddies.” The site quickly changed the headline to slightly reframe the issue, and it now reads that women would be “safer with fewer boyfriends around their kids,” but the underlying message remains the same: Preventing rape is related to women’s decisions. If women allow boyfriends around their kids, they’re increasing their kids’ chances of becoming the victims of abuse. It’s victim parent blaming.

—because she's not; however, the trade-off in almost any of these situations—


—isn't much of a trade-off. I mean, I'm pretty sure they're not specifically asking women to take one ... not so much on the chin, if ... er ... right ... for the sake of the children, but somewhere in there the proposition inherently results in asking some woman somewhere to get raped for the sake of future generations. This is a statistical reality.

From the time the rape phenomenon first entered my conscience I've heard this prevention advice, and of course there was a time when I was sympathetic to it. But it's just insane; after all these years it's actually hard to tell what progress is being made insofar as the statistics offer a strange result. VAWA has reduced domestic violence against women by sixty percent during its tenure, but at the same time intimate partner rape is climbing as a percent of reported rapes. The (ahem!) "good" news, such as we might dare call it, is that victims are speaking out. The bad news is, well, you know.

Marriage itself is not going to reduce rape. Indeed, marriage according to the pretenses of this rape prevention argument has strong potential to increase sexual violence and decrease the proportion of victims reporting the crimes.

It's almost like some of these people want women to be rape bait. This is fucking insanity.

And I don't even know where to start on GPS tracking to "allow guardians to check in on women’s location when they’re out on a date".

I mean, seriously?

This is what it comes to?
____________________

Notes:

Culp-Ressler, Tara. "All Of The Things Women Are Supposed To Do To Prevent Rape". ThinkProgress. June 10, 2014. ThinkProgress.org. June 20, 2014. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/10/3447269/guide-prevent-rape/

Planty, Michael et al. Female Victims of Sexual Violence. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2013. BJS.gov. June 20, 2014. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf
 
Excellent! Progress. Yes, women can sometimes tell. And that can prevent rapes. And that is a good thing. Hopefully you can agree with that.

Because in the real world it is. See the example above. Nothing more than common sense kept a woman from being the likely victim of an assault. No "getting a degree as a psychiatrist", no "getting your black belt." Just common sense.

Aaaaand - away down the rabbit hole you go again. No, I don't want women to behave a certain way. I want THEM to decide how to behave, based on their own knowledge, experience, education and risk assessment. And I advocate providing such education. Ignorance is one of a rapist's strongest allies.

Yes, that's another excellent approach. And I, like nearly every women's advocacy and anti-rape site out there, advocate that we do both.

The problem is that when people keep that pressure on women to prevent their own rapes, when obviously, it's not exactly easy (1 in 6 women raped means that it's nearly impossible), it creates an atmosphere that women are literally held to a particular standard in how they behave and what they do.

Let's look at me as a prime example. My house is overly secure. I have taken self-defense classes. And yet, I was still raped in my own overly secure property by someone I know. Other women are raped by their spouses or intimate partners or relatives. And it gets to a point where what exactly are women supposed to do aside from live in this state of perpetual readiness to respond to a possible attack.

I'll put it this way. When you get into bed at night, do you fall asleep prepared and knowing how to act if someone tries to rape you? Yet there is this expectation that a woman should know and be prepared in even the most mundane times, like going to bed to go to sleep.

It's a different standard and expectation and when women fail to live up to this ridiculous constantly changing standard, you have people blaming her. Like me. My back screen door was unlocked. My backyard is secure, security gates, high fences. But the screen door that leads onto my back veranda/deck was unlocked. I dozed off on the couch. My sister in law still said to me that it was my fault for leaving my screen door from my family room to my deck unlocked while I was dozed off in the room.. And I think to myself, err did I know I was going to doze off? No. Did I know he was stalking me and watching me at night? No. Should I have anticipated that someone could have broken into my property, scaled 2 6ft high walls, bypassed my dog and come in through my back sliding screen door and raped me after I dozed off on my couch? When she said this to me, at first, I actually thought she was right, I should have known better. But how could I have? There is very little crime in my area, it's a secure property. Am I not allowed to doze off in my family room with a back door leading to a secure and locked up back yard with high walls without fear of being raped on my couch? Where does it end? Where should it end? Common sense dictates that two 6ft high walls (front fence is a high wall and side fences and gates are equally high) would provide some security. Now I am told that having everything so closed off creates safety spots on my property, so that neighbours can't see in, so a possible rapist is able to simply hide on my property and the plants I have and trees I have also provide too many hiding spots.. So apparently common sense dictates that I remove all the walls and fences and any plant that could hide someone in my yard, all the shrubs and trees, I should install bars on my windows and security gates on my doors, especially the sliding doors.. In short, make everything easy to see and completely clear with lights illuminating all areas of my property and create a mini prison in my house.. But if I do that, then one day, my intimate partner could simply lock me in my home and rape me.. Bars on the windows means I can't run for help, I can't get out as easily.. And heaven forbid if there's a fire.. I had a security guy come to my property to see what else I could possibly do and that was his advice. Chop down all the trees and shrubs, remove all the fences and gates, make everything clear so that I can see every corner, bars on windows and doors.. And then he said I should do this if I want to avoid being raped again. So if I don't do this, I am inviting it? I want it?

It's like when people comment on how women should dress. How should we know what possible rapist is looking out for in his or her target? Women are raped wearing all sorts of clothes, so which one is more non-rapist friendly?

What about hair? We're told long hair can be grabbed, wear it up. But wearing it up also has its dangers, if it's a pony tail, rapist can grab onto that. Same with a bun. And wearing it up can also mean that they can grab all of your hair in one hand, whereas if it's down, it's trickier to, so you can possibly wrench your head away, lose some hair and still possibly escape. Or short hair, which means that it's harder for them to grab onto. So if a woman wants to prevent being raped, she should cut her hair short? My hair is short, I was still raped, in my own home, which was or should have been a secure property. Or how you behave. Some rapists get off on controlling and humiliating a woman who is opinionated and not meek and submissive, others prefer the submissive shy types. Others just don't care and they will just rape the woman they are married to or their own daughters, etc, regardless of personality.

Alcohol. That's always the big one. Don't drink alcohol if you want to avoid being raped. Okay. But the potential rapist can still spike your soft drink, juice or even glass of water or food you may consume. Or when they advocate don't accept drinks or food from people you don't know and trust. You're more likely to be raped by the person you know and trust. You go to a party, the designated driver is more likely to rape you as much as anyone else could. So they advocate having someone trusted to watch over you, drive, etc.. But they don't tell you that you are more likely to be raped by the very person you know and trust.

You may say you don't want women to behave a certain way, but then you say she should be responsible, etc and then you list what you think that entails if she does not want to be raped. What that does is apply this particular standard and a woman who fails to adhere to this..? How does she feel then?

Rape prevention is always full of conflicting advice and it is always catered to stranger rapes. Rape prevention advocates trusting your friends, etc, to help you if you are drunk, but you're more likely to be raped by the people you know and trust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top